TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 118
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder dated 07.04.2016 passed by the Settlement Commission, whereby the application filed by the petitioner was rejected. BRIEF FACTS: 2. The petitioner has imported four containers of waste paper and filed Bill of Entry No.4307675 dated 09.01.2014. From the said four containers, one was opened and found to contain waste paper. However, upon opening the remaining three containers, boxes wrapped in plastic bags containing cigarettes were found along with the waste paper. Accordingly, the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, "the Act"), under a panchnama dated 09.01.2014. 3. Thereafter, further investigation was conducted and a Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014 was issued to the petitioner under Section 124 of the Act, calling upon the petitioner to appear with supporting documents and explain why the seized goods should not be confiscated and why a penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Act should not be imposed. 4. Upon receipt of the said notice, the petitioner approached the Settlement Commission and filed an application under Section 127B(1) of the Act, proposing to settle the duty liability demanded in the Show Cause Notic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Counsel Mr. Ankit Shah, appearing for the respondents, has submitted that, after the first Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014 was issued to the petitioner intimating the action proposed to be taken for confiscation of the seized goods, a subsequent notice dated 03.03.2016 was issued to the petitioner, intimating the petitioner as to why a penalty should not be imposed. It is submitted that the petitioner was well aware of the same. 11. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Ankit Shah has further submitted that the petitioner, who was involved in the smuggling of cigarettes, has been afforded ample opportunity by the Settlement Commission after the seizure of the goods and, therefore, it could not be said that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice. It is urged that the petition may be dismissed. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION : 12. We have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. 13. The following facts emerge from the record that the respondent authorities, pursuant to the panchnama dated 09.01.2014, seized the imported goods of the petitioner under Section 110 of the Act. The investigation thereafter proceeded, and a Show ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Act, the Settlement Commission shall, within seven days from the date of the order passed under sub-section (1) of Section 127C of the Act, call for a report, along with the relevant records, from the jurisdictional Commissioner, who shall furnish the report within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the communication from the Settlement Commission. 19. In the present case, the order under sub-section (5) of Section 127C of the Act for proceeding with the application was passed on 12.01.2016. Thus, as per sub-section (3) of Section 127C of the Act, the Settlement Commission was required to call for the report, which appears to have been done, and the report was prepared on 18.03.2016. 20. Thereafter, the further procedure is prescribed under sub-section (4) of Section 127C of the Act. As per Section 127C(4) of the Act, where the report of the jurisdictional Commissioner has been furnished within the specified period and the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further inquiry or investigation is necessary, it may direct such further inquiry or investigation to be undertaken and a report to be furnishe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oncerned Commissioner under sub-section (4) of Section 127C of the Act, the Settlement Commission is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the concerned importer, exporter or any other person (applicant) and to the jurisdictional Commissioner, either in person or through a duly authorised representative. Thereafter, upon examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission may pass such orders as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and on any other matter relating to the case which is not covered by the application but is referred to in the report of the jurisdictional Commissioner or the Commissioner (Investigation) under subsection (3) or sub-section (4) of Section 127C of the Act. 23. Thus, the quintessential feature of the provisions of subsection (5) of Section 127C of the Act is the obligation to afford an opportunity of hearing to the applicant who has filed an application under Section 127B(1) of the Act and, thereafter, upon hearing the concerned Commissioner, to pass an appropriate order. 24. The Settlement Commission is, therefore, under an obligation to afford an opportunity to the ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 127B of the Act and requested the Commission to hear the same. However, while passing the order dated 08.08.2016 in the first application, which had been filed pursuant to the first Show Cause Notice dated 29.12.2014, the Settlement Commission refused to hear the second application filed under Section 127B of the Act pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.03.2016, on the ground that the same was required to be heard separately. 29. Interestingly, thereafter, by an order dated 25.10.2016, the second application filed by the present petitioner on 12.07.2016 under Section 127B(1) of the Act, pursuant to the second Show Cause Notice dated 03.03.2016, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to file a settlement application in relation to the Show Cause Notice dated 03.03.2016, since the main applicant, namely, M/s. Sun Enterprise, the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 13993 of 2016, had not filed any settlement application in respect thereof. 30. We fail to understand the analogy or reasoning adopted by the Settlement Commission in the proceedings arising from the captioned writ petitions, namely, those filed by M/s. Sun Enterprise and th....